They also nickel and dime the adults, but only the ones who make the games.
It's fine though, because they're nice to players and they've brainwashed them into giving their money to Valve instead of to the developers who actually make the games they fucking play.
Without steam, I'd still be playing my CD version of Homeworld 2.
I have paid $10 for every $1 of game I play, perhaps as high as $100:$1. A 30% cut of that seems totally reasonable. I have hundreds of games I keep just in case, and have played 10s of games I'd never have considered because they dont appear in Game Informer, PC Gamer, GoG, Twitch, Youtube, or other channels. They just are magically brought to me by steam, and I buy it and try it because I'm an adult now.
If game creators hate this, I feel bad for them, but I don't want anything to change as a consumer.
I agree that 30% is too large of a cut, but what would be appropriate? 15%? Steam does add a ton of value from an immediate audience, solid advertising opportunities, and amazing distribution for the developer.
Developers choose to give Steam 30% of their revenue because they know the steam channel increases their revenue by more than 30%. Doesn't that make it a good deal for developers?
My understanding is the tools that Steam provides as part of it's developer platform are top notch. And there are a lot of integration points such as cloud saves, social, match making, achievements, store, and so on. There is also a robust CD pipeline.
I can easily see this providing value above and beyond most other retailers that would sell video games. For example, Best Buy takes a 30% cut for physical merchandise, without providing any of the above mentioned features.
They still do that, Valve popularized the concepts of battle passes (with Dota 2) and loot boxes (with Team Fortress 2). They also took a paid game with TF2 and added all that monetization after the fact.
Counter-Strike especially has a pretty nasty gambling scene that Valve refuses to control, even though its only possible because of their marketplace and APIs.
I really wish the company would talk more about the post-Gabe transition, or at least begin to give us a rough indication of where the company plans to go.
Those of us who have been customers over 20 years often have a pretty significant investment in Steam content, and Gabe is getting old.
No company will ever do that. Even if they did, no one on the planet should expect it to play out as described. The whole anti-DRM position is based on the fact promises aren't worth a damn thing.
This seems like the opposite of almost every family dynasty company that has ever existed. The second generation might keep things on track. The third generation never will.
We let kids gamble so much money in games that they don't have to nickel and dime the adults.
They also nickel and dime the adults, but only the ones who make the games.
It's fine though, because they're nice to players and they've brainwashed them into giving their money to Valve instead of to the developers who actually make the games they fucking play.
Without steam, I'd still be playing my CD version of Homeworld 2.
I have paid $10 for every $1 of game I play, perhaps as high as $100:$1. A 30% cut of that seems totally reasonable. I have hundreds of games I keep just in case, and have played 10s of games I'd never have considered because they dont appear in Game Informer, PC Gamer, GoG, Twitch, Youtube, or other channels. They just are magically brought to me by steam, and I buy it and try it because I'm an adult now.
If game creators hate this, I feel bad for them, but I don't want anything to change as a consumer.
4 replies →
I agree that 30% is too large of a cut, but what would be appropriate? 15%? Steam does add a ton of value from an immediate audience, solid advertising opportunities, and amazing distribution for the developer.
18 replies →
Developers choose to give Steam 30% of their revenue because they know the steam channel increases their revenue by more than 30%. Doesn't that make it a good deal for developers?
1 reply →
Plenty of devs choose to sell on other platforms or directly and do fine. Steam doesn't have a monopoly on games the way Apple and Google do
My understanding is the tools that Steam provides as part of it's developer platform are top notch. And there are a lot of integration points such as cloud saves, social, match making, achievements, store, and so on. There is also a robust CD pipeline.
I can easily see this providing value above and beyond most other retailers that would sell video games. For example, Best Buy takes a 30% cut for physical merchandise, without providing any of the above mentioned features.
All distribution channels that existed before steam are still available. Multiple competitors to steam are available.
Again that old, tired argument. nobody has a gun to the devs head to force them to sell on steam
That's true now, but Valve has been like this since the start, way before skins and microtransactions.
You’re ignoring how much of a role the TF2 hats played in pushing microtransaction skins.
Steam came out in 2003. TF2 hats came out in 2009. It’s lived in the world of micro transactions way longer than it lived in the before times.
The problem with Steam is developers are paying 30% to introduce their players to CSGO and DOTA2.
Another POV is, nobody on HN has any idea what he's talking about, it's all vibes.
Most other companies would still nickel and dime the adults, though.
They still do that, Valve popularized the concepts of battle passes (with Dota 2) and loot boxes (with Team Fortress 2). They also took a paid game with TF2 and added all that monetization after the fact.
Counter-Strike especially has a pretty nasty gambling scene that Valve refuses to control, even though its only possible because of their marketplace and APIs.
Does Valve even own games played by kids anymore? Aren't all of the cs skin traders and tf2 players in their 20s at youngest?
They are not. The literal selling point of valve's games for kid gambling is that you don't need to pass KYCs for gambling with steam credits.
"We" is the kids' parents, and I would assume it's the parents' money.
Gabe better be immortal.
I really wish the company would talk more about the post-Gabe transition, or at least begin to give us a rough indication of where the company plans to go.
Those of us who have been customers over 20 years often have a pretty significant investment in Steam content, and Gabe is getting old.
AFAIK his son has been working there for quite a while and is the heir apparent.
1 reply →
No company will ever do that. Even if they did, no one on the planet should expect it to play out as described. The whole anti-DRM position is based on the fact promises aren't worth a damn thing.
1 reply →
They have a vat with brain hookups[0] waiting to place Gabe in, so immortality is nigh. No post-Gabe transition needed.
[0]: https://imgur.com/a/2XbM18n
edit: fixed image link
He’s going to die in a fucking scuba diving accident, I have nightmares about it constantly
I highly doubt it for a number of factors.
- Most of his dives look to be rec depth
- He isn't running any crazy gear like a CCR
- He has instant access to a chamber, so any DCS worries are virtually zero
- There is no go-itis for him. If weather is bad, he just packs up and sails to somewhere nicer
Out of all the rich people hobbies, scuba is about the safest
1 reply →
Have you warned Gabe about this
Hope Linus isn't on that same expedition.
If your “we” is Australia, you could have implemented consumer protections then sued Valve for ignoring them: https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/valve-to-pay-3-million...
That was 9 years ago.
Are they compliant in the Australian market now?
They are, but they only implemented proper refunds after being pushed by Australia.
I just wish they made more games than they currently do. Their games are always nicely polished and unique / creative in their own respect.
They're a private company. Not all private companies are good, but all public ones inevitably turn terrible.
Valve will only be good if it stays privately owned. Good things go to shit as soon as investors become involved
I felt the same about early 00s Google. It will probably not last forever.
I'm optimistic provided they continue to be privately held and don't parachute in a professional executive to be CEO after Gabe departs.
This is the answer. Enshitification is a requirement of the fiduciary duty of public companies. A private company can stay good forever.
Fiduciary duty doesn’t mean what you think it does.
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042915/what-are-som...
Until the current management retires, as it usually goes.
In my experience family held companies do tend to keep their values somewhat intact on succession.
This seems like the opposite of almost every family dynasty company that has ever existed. The second generation might keep things on track. The third generation never will.
I think many more companies would operate like this if acquisition and mergers were much more difficult.